Israeli anger grows as amateurish and conflicted envoy Witkoff draws fire for his Qatari financial ties and naive approach to Hamas hostage talks and media miscues to anti-Semitic Tucker Carlson.

Reports of a proposed U.S. deal with Hamas to secure the release of a single American-Israeli hostage, Edan Alexander, have sparked anger in Israel, intensifying existing tensions between the Netanyahu government and Washington. The proposal, reportedly brokered through Qatar, calls for former U.S. President Donald Trump to issue a public statement urging calm in Gaza and renewed ceasefire negotiations. In return, Hamas would free Alexander. Israeli officials and the public have sharply criticized the limited nature of this arrangement, arguing it undercuts broader efforts to dismantle Hamas’s terror infrastructure.

Alexander, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, remains among two dozen hostages confirmed alive following Hamas’s attacks of October 7, 2023. Israeli intelligence continues to track his condition, describing the urgency of the situation as critical, but officials remain skeptical of a deal that prioritizes one hostage while leaving Hamas intact.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently maintained that Israel’s primary objective remains Hamas’s defeat. Netanyahu recently reiterated this position, stating clearly: “We will not allow a short-term agreement to strengthen Hamas’s position or leave them intact.” His position reflects a broader Israeli consensus emphasizing that any negotiation or ceasefire must achieve tangible security gains and the dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities.

The Israeli public, deeply invested in securing the return of all hostages, has grown increasingly frustrated at the possibility that only a single hostage—an American dual citizen—might be released as part of this arrangement. Demonstrations across Israel have underscored widespread frustration, reflecting fears that such piecemeal negotiations could encourage further hostage-taking by Hamas. Protesters argue that accepting partial agreements without tangible strategic gains would set a troubling precedent, effectively rewarding Hamas for terrorist actions.

Adding to the controversy, the role played by U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff in negotiations has drawn considerable criticism. Witkoff, a prominent New York Jews and financially troubled real estate mogul appointed by Trump, has faced sharp scrutiny for his amatuerish handling of sensitive diplomatic talks and his apparent financial entanglements with Qatar, a key financial supporter of Hamas. In 2023, Witkoff sold Manhattan’s prestigious Park Lane Hotel to the Qatar Investment Authority for $623 million—a transaction that many now claim compromises his diplomatic objectivity.

Rabbi Pini Dunner, a prominent Jewish Republican leader, publicly criticized Witkoff’s involvement, stating, “Unfortunately, Steve Witkoff is compromised… Qatar owns him because they saved him from financial ruin.” This criticism aligns with growing bipartisan concerns about Witkoff’s bumbling credibility, leading to public calls for his resignation.

Witkoff further inflamed tensions with recent remarks downplaying Hamas’s extremist nature. Speaking in defense of his direct interactions with Hamas officials, Witkoff said, “Maybe I would see them and say, ‘Look, they don’t have horns growing out of their head. They’re actually guys like us. They’re pretty nice guys.'” Such comments sparked widespread outrage in Israel and the Jewish diaspora, viewed as dangerously naive given Hamas’s documented history of terrorism.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich also voiced strong objections to Witkoff’s diplomatic approach, calling it “an utter mistake,” suggesting that direct American engagement with Hamas emboldens the terror group and undermines Israel’s long-standing policy of isolating Hamas diplomatically and militarily.

Critics argue Witkoff’s approach risks not only compromising Israeli security interests but also weakening U.S.-Israel strategic coordination. They warn that the very suggestion of direct American negotiations with Hamas could fracture the united diplomatic front that has long underpinned successful anti-terror operations and negotiations.

Meanwhile, Egypt has introduced an alternative proposal, potentially more acceptable to Israel. Under Egypt’s framework, Hamas would release five hostages weekly in exchange for continued Israeli restraint in Gaza. Although this incremental approach has been cautiously welcomed by some Israeli officials, Hamas’s internal dynamics remain unpredictable, with the group historically demanding sweeping Israeli concessions before significant hostage releases.

Israel’s stance remains clear: short-term diplomatic gestures, particularly those focused narrowly on individual hostages rather than broader security outcomes, cannot substitute for a strategic plan aimed at permanently removing Hamas as a military threat. Israeli military and intelligence communities continue to emphasize that only sustained pressure on Hamas—military, diplomatic, and economic—will lead to meaningful security gains.

As pressure mounts for Witkoff’s resignation, Israel confronts a challenging diplomatic landscape. Netanyahu’s government must carefully navigate the tensions inherent in dealing with international allies while firmly protecting Israeli security interests. Any deal that weakens Israel’s leverage without achieving substantial gains on the ground will likely be rejected outright, reflecting the deeply held Israeli belief that peace and security require strength, resolve, and unwavering commitment to dismantling terror groups like Hamas.